Press left gagging over injunction orders

Over the past three years, more than 30 married celebrities have carried out what is known as a super-injunction order. To those outside of the media, this may not mean much, but ask any journalist about these media restrictions and they will tell you just what a pain they can be, preventing the population from knowing the truth.

It seems that in this day and age there is a two-track society; there are those that know, such as certain journalists who discover the story. Then there are those that are denied knowing, that is you, the reader. Super-injunctions are over protecting celebrities, completely breaking freedom of expression. A super-injunction is something which, by going through the courts, can be paid for to prevent certain information being revealed to the population. It is estimated that the legal fees to obtain such an order costs between an estimated £10,000 to £20,000. It’s fair to say it’s not for your everyday citizen. They are used to prevent information, such as a celebrity who has had an affair, or a celebrity who has perhaps lost all of their money through gambling, from being revealed. In fact journalists can’t reveal any information which may help to reveal the subject. This has a massive effect on public interest – something which is vital to take into consideration when it comes to being an ethical journalist. There are various regulations that all journalists must abide by, public interest appears as part of all of these. Both the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) Code of Practice, as well as the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Conduct, use public interest as a defence to publishing various stories. It works as a get-out-clause; allowing journalists to publish material which at the time may have been invading a certain celebrity’s privacy, or even harassing them. But this is outweighed by the public’s right to know – public interest. Harassment (PCC, 4) as well as Privacy (PCC, 3 and NUJ, 6 and Ofcom, 8) is something which journalists must respect, if to remain ethical. To invade upon someone’s private life, or to even harass them, whether it is in the comfort of their own home or on an open beach, is to be avoided. There is however a clause which allows journalists to bend the rules slightly, this is where stories “can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.” James Dixon, 29, is a journalist of six years, currently working as free-lance journalists on various football blogging websites. He believes that this is an issue which is continuously getting worse: “You see much more of it now than back when I was learning the trade, so you could say that it is getting worse”. Dixon also believes that celebrities hiding behind super-injunctions completely contradicts the PCC clause of public interest: “Journalists should never take it too far and start rummaging through bin bags for a juicy story, but if you see a married politician or any sort of celebrity leaving a bar in the early hours of the morning with another lady, then of course you should be able to reveal this – it’s in the public’s interest to know that the man they voted for is cheating on his wife, or that the TV star they idolise has had an affair.” These views are shared by the majority of journalists who believe that they are remaining ethical, but being prevented from reporting stories that the public have the right to know of. The number of magazines which brand themselves on celebrity exclusives is growing by the years; super-injunctions are seriously preventing them from selling magazines, is this really fair? It is important to note that media regulators PCC and NUJ, unlike Ofcom, have very little power, in fact they can only name and shame the journalist, without awarding damages (where as Ofcom, should they wish could revoke a broadcasters licence). This has led to media regulator PCC being branded a ‘toothless’ watchdog. To an extent this can be seen as fair, after all, it is run by journalists, for journalists. It is however the courts which can award damages to the celebrity, caused by the journalist, editor and the paper. It is not worth breaking the injunction order, unless you want to be out of a job. Celebrities feel that they have the right to expect privacy, which in fact they do. If they leave a club in the early hours of the morning with another woman, then this is their own personal choice and journalists should not write about it. They will also feel that journalists, who constantly wait around their home, ringing their phones even, are breaching various codes of conduct, such as harassment. This is not enough grounds for celebs to stop journalists publishing a story which could get the paper thousands of extra readers; they instead need to go through the courts to carry out a super-injunction to make sure the stories can’t be published, using reasons such as child welfare to gain the order. Celebrities act as role-models for children; they are people who have a large influence over the population. Should they have a supreme right to privacy? That is debatable. One thing is for certain – celebrities are only humans, but this doesn’t give them the anonymity when it comes to committing an offence, such as cheating on their partner. So yes, to an extent celebrities do in fact have a fair ground to not want their story published, after all, who would want their face all over the papers for the wrong reasons? But journalists feel that as long as the material has been obtained by honest and straightforward means (NUJ, 5), and that the celebrity in question has been given the opportunity to reply (PCC, 2) then they have the right to publish the story. Even more so if it’s in the public interest. The fine line between privacy and public interest is something which all journalists know about. But is it fair that celebrities have an advantage, being able to protect themselves from public interest? As put by Samuel Warren “Each man is responsible for his own acts... he is responsible for the results. If he resists, public opinion will rally to his support.” Samuel here shares the same view as most journalists. To use the example from earlier, if a celebrity is found to have cheated on his wife, then they should be held “responsible for the results” – this is not the case in this modern day society, where privacy seemingly overpowers public interest. Taking a real life example, the John Terry affair last February –which the News of the World was first to break - came about after hours of legal work, going through the court system to overturn the injunction that Mr. Terry had put in place. Terry had not only attempted to put a super-injunction in place, but also a hyper-injunction, which prevents journalists from even revealing that there is a super-injunction in place. In the end, the injunction was lifted because he was keener on protecting his sponsorship deals and image than his right to privacy, thus leading Judge, Mr Justice Tugendhat to rule that “Freedom of expression outweighed Terry’s right to suppress the reporting of his affair.” A big victory for public interest, and a big victory for journalists. It looked as though a corner had been turned. But this wasn’t to be. At this moment in time two footballers, an actor, a couple of high profile TV stars, a soccer manager, as well as many more, have carried out a super-injunction order this year alone. Thus preventing journalists from revealing their identities. In simple terms, the public are not being told the truth. It seems that in this day and age privacy overrides public interest, a defeat for journalists. A defeat for the public.

News of the World phone hacking scandal

The News of the World phone hacking scandal which began in late 2005 and still to this day continues, provides the perfect example as to why it is so important for journalists to abide by the rules put in place by various journalism governing bodies such as the NUJ and PCC. By sticking within these guidelines, journalists will avoid breaking the regulations and remain ethical – something which is seen as important in this business. The story continues to run on to this day due to the claims by more and more celebrities claiming to have been caught up in the whole affair, most notably Sienna Miller, who has helped to put this story right back into the public spotlight.Within this case study I will look at the hacking scandal in-depth, focusing on what actions have so far been taken against those involved and the impact that this has had to the newspaper as a whole. I will also focus on what organisations, such as the PCC, have done in order to help avoid such issues arising in the future.Billed as an exclusive, the News of the World ran a story in April 2006 regarding Prince Harry and his private life, under a headline titled “Chelsy Tears a Strip off Harry”, (News of the World 2006) the paper claimed that Harry had been visiting strip clubs in his spare time. Officials at Buckingham Palace became suspicious as to how the News of the World had gained quotes which had been included in the story (which has since been pulled from the site). Detectives decided to look into the case and found that Prince Harry had indeed been a victim of phone hacking, he wasn’t alone, “a vast number of public figures” (Scotland Yard Press Release 2006) had also been dragged into the scandal, if the case wasn’t serious before, it certainly was now. The hacked phone calls were tracked to News of the Worlds’ Private Investigator, Glen Mulcaire. Two months after this initial investigation by the police in August 2006, Mulcaire along with fellow News of the World journalist, Royal Editor Clive Goodman, were both arrested with police seizing computer records, paperwork and audiotapes – the police decided against questioning any other journalists, despite eight victims being identified. The two journalists faced a court hearing in January 2007 where Judge, Mr Justice Gross, sentenced both Mulcaire and Goodman to four months in prison for ‘plotting to intercept voicemail messages left for royal aides’, a serious issue. During the case, Judge, Mr Justice Gross, told the guilty journalists that it was not about press freedom, but about “grave, inexcusable and illegal invasion of privacy”. This is an important point made by the Judge, Mr Justice Gross, who clearly divides the terms press freedom and privacy - something which must be noted by all journalists. Journalism is no different to any other industry in the fact that it is regulated in some way. The freedom of the press in a democracy is fundamental and government control is resisted fiercely, as a result the media is generally regulated through constraint in the UK. Mulcaire and Goodman believed that they could use the defence of ‘public interest’, something which allows the press to publish material which, as put by the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) themselves: “Prevents the public from being misled by an action or statement of an individual or organisation”, offering journalists a ‘get-out clause’. This is down to the fact that, “Editors will be expected to justify intrusions,” (PCC 2010) it is clear to see however that the stories in which the News of the World would go on to publish, despite being a story which the public would indeed find interesting, was not in favour of public interest, and rightly so, there was no true justification.Taking the example of Prince Harry - which sparked this whole investigation in the first place - the Prince was rightly entitled to his own privacy, certainly in these circumstances. Public interest must outweigh privacy when it comes to publishing material, for example, Prince Harry, along with the “vast number of public figures” caught up in this hacking scandal should not have expected to have had their private phones hacked in to, the material had not been “imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence” (Freedom of Information Act 2000) which simply means that it was an illegal method of obtaining material, it was strictly confidential. If Prince Harry had decided to release a statement claiming that he had spent a night in a strip club for example, the News of the World would be expected to publish this as it is in the “public domain” (McNae’s 2009) so no major problems would arise. As long as newspapers and magazines abide by the rules set in place by organisations such as the National Union for Journalists (NUJ) then the “union will stand by them if doing so gets them in trouble”. This is present not just with the NUJ regulations but all the major governing journalism bodies, such as the PCC and also Ofcom, who deal with the broadcast side of regulations – it is clear that an invasion of privacy is strictly prohibited. By failing to “Obtain material by honest, straightforward and open means” (NUJ Code 5) the News of the World had failed to stick to the guidelines, in fact they managed to do the complete opposite, they can have no complaints. The fact that this case invaded privacy to such an extreme length meant that police involvement was necessary; leading to the departure of the then editor, Andy Coulson. Despite this, one of those hit by the scandal, Brian Paddick, the former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was hugely disappointed at the police investigation into the scandal and believes that after making the double arrest early on, the case was put aside, claiming that: “A very small number of victim cases were actually taken forward” (Dispatches 2011). This claim came as no real surprise as the tabloid newspaper has a history with the Metropolitan Police regarding money being paid for stories, something which is a different case altogether, but again shows the risks associated with being involved in journalism, a highly competitive business. During the initial stages of the investigation, the PCC had been surprisingly quiet about the whole scandal. They have been described by many as being ‘toothless’ in the past, claiming that due to the organisation essentially being run by journalists for journalists, it makes it incredibly biased. These claims were perhaps backed-up when the PCC published a hacking report of the incident in May 2007, finding no further evidence of wrongdoing. To avoid a repeat of the controversy however, the PCC made recommendations to other newspapers and magazines, such as paying close attention on outgoing payments to external contributors.It is clear to see that the News of the World were in clear breach of certain regulations put in place by the PCC, one of those yet to be mentioned, which fits in with privacy, is a regulation put in place which insists that everybody should be “entitled to respect for his or her private and family life... including digital communications”, this includes phone hacking, again a regulation broken by the News of the World. It is important to note that by breaking professional codes such as the one above, journalists are not in fact breaking the law as such (hacking into somebody else’s phone is a different matter) but you are instead being an ‘unethical journalist’ and as a result you lose credibility, as to does the newspaper or magazine you are writing for. Despite not fining or disciplining the journalists or the newspaper directly, the PCC still offer the public the opportunity to lodge a complaint via a free, efficient service and they are often left content with the resolution. This topic of being an unethical journalist is something covered in McNae’s essential law for journalists, a book which specialises in areas of journalism such as privacy. The book focuses on unethical journalists by claiming: “There is an obligation of confidence on those who obtain confidential information by unethical means” (2009), Mulcaire and Goodman for example would be considered as unethical journalists as a result of the phone hacking scandal. The impact the scandal has had is evident, not just through credible journalists being jailed, and most recently suspended, but also through the credibility of the paper plummeting and well known figures suing, showing that by failing to abide by the rules, the results can leave a big hole right in the heart of the industry. To conclude, it is important to put focus back on the impact that this entire scandal has so far had on one of Britain’s – and in fact the worlds – most well known newspapers. Throughout the entire scandal the News of the World had insisted that Mulcaire and Goodman were the only two journalists involved, that was until two months ago, when journalist Ian Edmondson, who was Deputy Editor under Coulson, was suspended under claims of phone hacking, he denied wrongdoing but was later sacked. The emergence of the dismissal of Edmondson sparked this whole scandal back to life and more and more began suing. It is expected that to this day that as many as 10 celebrities have sued the corporation, including ex-footballer Paul Gascoigne, actress Sienna Miller, actor Steve Coogan and many more well known figures – it is expected however that in the original documents seized from the office of Mulcaire that as many as 4,000 names were included, this case may not be ending any time soon. The News of the World by being unethical, by invading privacy without justifying and simply by not abiding by the regulations put in place; have landed themselves into one of the biggest scandals regarding journalism the world has ever seen.